Unit: Anthropology
Program: Anthropology (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 7:09:25 am

1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)

1. Regular: A broad knowledge of the discipline of anthropology as a whole, its historical and theoretical foundations and schools of thought, with special emphasis on one or more of its subfields (archaeology, physical anthropology, linguistic anthropology or cultural anthropology)

2. Regular: The ability to conduct research, to formulate researchable problems, to write research proposals, to apply methodologies basic to the relevant subdiscipline[s], and to write research reports;

3. Regular: An anthropological familiarity with different geographical regions with focus on one in which the student proposes doing anthropological field research;

4. Regular: An ability to teach introductory courses in one or more subdisciplines of anthropology.

5. Archaeology: Design and organize archaeological research that is technically sound

6. Archaeology: Identify, document, and analyze archaeological resources and related historic properties

7. Archaeology: Evaluate the significance of archaeological materials with respect to state and federal laws and regulations

8. Archaeology: Establish and maintain constructive relationships with heritage communities and stakeholders

9. Archaeology: Assist community organizations with the stewardship of archaeology resources.

10. Archaeology: Practice archaeology in fashion that is professionally ethical and culturally informed.

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: The URL will be provided later. The Anthropology department is currently redesigning its website and the SLOs will be published at that time.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: It is still under development but will be made available next semester.
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
Other:
Other:

3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2018:

4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.

0%
1-50%
51-80%
81-99%
100%

5) Does the program have learning achievement results for its program SLOs? (Example of achievement results: "80% of students met expectations on SLO 1.")(check one):

No
Yes, on some(1-50%) of the program SLOs
Yes, on most(51-99%) of the program SLOs
Yes, on all(100%) of the program SLOs

6) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2015 and October 31, 2018?

Yes
No (skip to question 17)

7) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2015 to October 31, 2018? (Check all that apply.)

Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey)
Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement
Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups
Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring)
No (skip to question 17)
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7)
Other:

8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place.

The Applied Archaeology MA program began use of the rubric newly developed in 2017 and evaluated two students that graduated in Summer and Spring 2018.   The students were evaluated against six SLOs.    One student performed at above or exceeding expectations in each category and the other exceeded expectations in most categories but had received lesser scores in other SLOs because the student required considerable guidance to analyze and write clearly.

The regular Anthropology MA program evaluated one student using the rubric newly developed in 2017 in Spring 2018and in all 8 criteria categories were above or had exceeded the expectations of the program. 

9) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 7? (Check all that apply.)

Artistic exhibition/performance
Assignment/exam/paper completed as part of regular coursework and used for program-level assessment
Capstone work product (e.g., written project or non-thesis paper)
Exam created by an external organization (e.g., professional association for licensure)
Exit exam created by the program
IRB approval of research
Oral performance (oral defense, oral presentation, conference presentation)
Portfolio of student work
Publication or grant proposal
Qualifying exam or comprehensive exam for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation (graduate level only)
Supervisor or employer evaluation of student performance outside the classroom (internship, clinical, practicum)
Thesis or dissertation used for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation
Alumni survey that contains self-reports of SLO achievement
Employer meetings/discussions/survey/interview of student SLO achievement
Interviews or focus groups that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Student reflective writing assignment (essay, journal entry, self-assessment) on their SLO achievement.
Student surveys that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc.
Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.)
Other 1:
Other 2:

10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

MA Applied Archaeology - 2 students were evaluated. Evaluation of final non-thesis paper based on evaluation rubric criteria.

MA Anthropology - 1 student was evaluated.  Evaluation of thesis based on evaluation rubric criteria.

11) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)

Course instructor(s)
Faculty committee
Ad hoc faculty group
Department chairperson
Persons or organization outside the university
Faculty advisor
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
Dean/Director
Other:

12) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)

Used a rubric or scoring guide
Scored exams/tests/quizzes
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
Compiled survey results
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)
Other:

13) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 7. For example, report the percentage of students who achieved each SLO.

MA Applied Archaeology - SLO#1 -50% achieved expectations, SLO#2 -50% achieved expectations, SLO#3-100% achieved expectations, SLO#4 -100% achieved expectations, SLO#5 - 100% achieved expectations, SLO#6-100% achieved expectations.

 

Regular MA Anthropology - 100% achieved expectations for each SLO.

14) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)

Assessment procedure changes (SLOs, curriculum map, rubrics, evidence collected, sampling, communications with faculty, etc.)
Course changes (course content, pedagogy, courses offered, new course, pre-requisites, requirements)
Personnel or resource allocation changes
Program policy changes (e.g., admissions requirements, student probation policies, common course evaluation form)
Students' out-of-course experience changes (advising, co-curricular experiences, program website, program handbook, brown-bag lunches, workshops)
Celebration of student success!
Results indicated no action needed because students met expectations
Use is pending (typical reasons: insufficient number of students in population, evidence not evaluated or interpreted yet, faculty discussions continue)
Other:

15) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.

The MA Archaeology faculty assessed the following issues and remediation for the Applied Archaeology program.

1.  To address weak writing skills, it was suggested that the curriculum is revised to require a course in technical writing for all students or restrict admissions to intolerably low levels.

2.  To address professional skills, it was suggested that time management skills be incorporated into the existing professional skills course

3.  For students who lack clearly articulated professional (and personal) goals, require appropriate workshops within the university that can assist their development in this area.

16) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, and great achievements regarding program assessment in this reporting period.

NA

17) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please justify.

NA